• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump approves military strikes on Iran then quickly pulls back

Threegoofs said:
And Trump then scuttled the deal for little to no reason, meaning Iran got all their frozen assets back and now do not need to do anything in return.

Stable genius!
Click to expand...

The deal was an appeasement cluster ****. Sanctions were going to be lifted, while Iran carried on unchecked. Only a moron like Obama would say it was a good deal.
 
Rexedgar said:
It admittedly has been a long time since I handled an M-16. Am I remembering it wrong when I remember that the magazine will mount to the receiver with the bolt forward? Same as a semi-auto pistol will accept the clip with the bolt forward? I only ever remember pulling the charging handle to the rear when chambering the first round.

Even during my service it sounded backward. Never heard cocked and loaded, iirc.
Click to expand...
The magazine will load into the weapon with the bolt forward but proper loading procedure is to lock the bolt to the rear first.
 
Threegoofs said:
And Trump then scuttled the deal for little to no reason, meaning Iran got all their frozen assets back and now do not need to do anything in return. Stable genius!
Click to expand...
There was the detail that Iran was constantly cheating on the deal.

Stable or unstable, genius is possible. I reserve judgment for now.

EnigmaO01 said:
But you're still lying.
Click to expand...
That is called citing a reference. Lying is very different.
 
Atomic Kid said:
Unlike what Trump is presently doing at the border Obama was following the law when he returned their seized assets plus the interest accrued as mandated by international law.
Click to expand...

Actually, Obama broke the law. He should be tried and if found guilty, sent to pound'em in the ass prison.
 
apdst said:
Actually, Obama broke the law. He should be tried and if found guilty, sent to pound'em in the ass prison.
Click to expand...

Actually you're so far out of touch with reality on this that there's probably no coming back for you.
 
apdst said:
I've already posted the evidence.
Click to expand...

Actually this goes all the way back to Carter and Reagan and a 400 million dollar deal for Us fighter jets that Iran had paid for when they were an ally of the US. Which of course was cancelled when they became an enemy. The Iran hostage crisis that went on more than a year "ended with a bargain: In exchange for the release of 52 American diplomats and citizens, both sides agreed to resolve the question of money through international arbitration. The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal has trudged along for almost four decades now, and the money has flowed both ways. By 1983, Iran had returned $896 million to U.S. banks, which in turn had returned hundreds of millions in frozen funds to Iran. Today, private claims from the U.S. side have been resolved to the tune of $2.1 billion.

But still at issue as Obama began his second term was $400 million that Iran in the late 1970s had paid for U.S. fighter jets, while Tehran was still a U.S. ally. After it turned into an enemy in 1979, Washington was not about to deliver the jets. But, all these years later, Iran wanted its money back—and with interest.

All told, Tehran was asking The Hague arbitrators (comprising equal numbers of U.S., Iranian and neutral judges) for $10 billion. Fearing they might actually be awarded that much, or something like it, the Obama administration negotiated privately with Tehran, which agreed to settle for $1.7 billion. The $400 million stacked on pallets was the first installment."

$400 Million: Why the U.S. Owed Iran in the First Place | Time
 
apdst said:
No they didn't, what?
Click to expand...

Iran was in compliance with measures that did not allow them the capacity to produce a nuclear weapon. They lacked the ability to enrich uranium to the sufficient levels.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Iran was in compliance with measures that did not allow them the capacity to produce a nuclear weapon. They lacked the ability to enrich uranium to the sufficient levels.
Click to expand...

They violated the deal from the git go. You can spin it how you want.
 
apdst said:
They violated the deal from the git go. You can spin it how you want.
Click to expand...

No, they didnt. It was confirmed numerous times Iran was in compliance.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
No, they didnt. It was confirmed numerous times Iran was in compliance.
Click to expand...

It was never confirmed:

Yet the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) recently stated that it could not verify that Iran was "fully implementing the agreement" by not engaging in activities that would allow it to make a nuclear explosive device. Yukiya Amano of the IAEA told Reuters that when it comes to inspections, which are stipulated in Section T of the agreement, "our tools are limited." Amano continued to say: "In other sections, for example, Iran has committed to submit declarations, place their activities under safeguards or ensure access by us. But in Section T, I don't see any (such commitment)."

Iran is violating the deal | TheHill
Click to expand...
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
You base your political knowledge on Maher's making fun of politicians. Enough said.
Click to expand...



Where did I "base my political knowledge" on Maher? You're making **** up.


Maher's characterization of Trump is rather accurate, though presented in an amusing fashion.
 
LowDown said:
If Pres. Trump is a warmonger he's doing it all wrong.

Also, a retaliatory strike isn't the same thing as going to war.
Click to expand...

A military strike against Iran could easily spiral out of control and have dire consequences, that is the consensus of intel and military establishment.
 
OscarLevant said:
A military strike against Iran could easily spiral out of control and have dire consequences, that is the consensus of intel and military establishment.
Click to expand...

Have there been wars without dire consequences?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Have there been wars without dire consequences?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The shooting down of drones is not uncommon and hardly a reason to got o war unless an aggressor like the U.S. is just plain determined to destroy the regime for reasons only Bolton knows for certain. India has shot at Pakistani drones. Turkey shot down a Russian drone. Iran disabled a U.S. RQ-170 drone in 2011. Israel shot down an similar Iranian drone in 2018.

Meanwhile, Bolton a mad man who thought regime change in Iraq would be a walk in the park, charges full steam ahead believing he can destroy Iran and install a bunch of totalitarian lunatics (the MEK) in place of the current Iranian leadership. It is disgusting.

"This confirms Bolton’s extremely poor judgment and underscores how truly crazy his overall argument for war with Iran is. It also reminds us how oblivious Iran hawks such as Bolton are to the political realities inside Iran. Once again we have a hawkish demand for U.S. support for an exile group that has absolutely no support in its own country in order to achieve regime change. Indeed, the group that Bolton has been helping to promote is widely loathed in Iran for good reason and has no credibility at all with the domestic political opposition. It is Bolton’s embrace of the MEK as much as anything else that ought to discredit his views on Iran policy."


Bolton and the MEK | The American Conservative
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom